Marpubrel
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
October 2012 edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mercyhurst University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Webclient101 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mercyhurst University with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Krenair (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
So I've been discussing your edits to Mercyhurst University with a few other editors and some things have come up:
- It is never appropriate to ask that an article not be edited 'as a courtesy'. Please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit, know that others are free to change its content.
- When removing content, especially things like that, I expect (though some other editors disagree with me here) you to give a good reason. Until your 16:59 edit ('content is subjective') there was none given as far as I seen. In my experience with people removing content in such a way, I've seen that it is far more likely that you get blocked, not the people reverting you.
- In your last edit summary you mentioned 'we'. Please explain this because combined with your name (pubrel = public relations?) it seems that you're probably editing on behalf of the university, in which case WP:COI applies.
- You should make yourself aware of WP:3RR. Edit warring is not an option, you should always seek to discuss the issue on the talk page.
To other editors: see also Special:Contributions/66.211.206.76 (hostname is 66-211-206-76.mercyhurst.edu), who was also doing the same thing as this editor.
--Krenair (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is not "your" article. — foxj 18:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mercyhurst University. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SudoGhost 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Would it be possible for you to put the Garvey scandal at the bottom of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marpubrel (talk • contribs)